Bring Back Gnash and more?! (Remove Dread winder Positions)

[BasilBestBoy]

Now that ive chewed on the viper changes i can confidently say i still love how viper feel;s and plays, BUT the sauce was stricken from it a bit. Initially i liked the change to allow me to fuck around with where to fit in dreadwinder more freely, and to focus more on the standard combos and awakening...but now i see what i thought was pigeon holing me with Gnash was instead the puzzle to solve in the class.

I wasn't any of the voices asking for the change, and i do think the change isnt as drastic as folks may make it but again, if we gotta choose between loss of sauce vs losing a position? sauce me up pls and let me sit still XD

Thankfully i do think this is a really easy thing to walk back/fix in the future and honestly i wonder if it be cool to have a dot/another power up that worked like Gnash to add to the combos. Like really lean into one combo starting giving gnash and one giving another self buff (or a dot).

This would essentially be what monk was before Dawntrail but monk positional were always more of a pain to work around with the difference being twin snakes and bootshine were at drastically different points of the combo where as Vipers "poisons" would both be top offs at the beginning of the combo, and thus easier to apply but you still have to think where your going to apply them.

And as the title says, to keep the class to feel easier in some way since people were complaining about it, id say lets go ahead and remove dread winder positions. We already use true north to avoid it, and without Gnash it doesnt..feel right ya know?

[koko-on-da-forumz]

What upset people is that no changes were necessary. Viper already wasn't challenging, but now players are expected to choose their preferred brain damage? Why?

Put it back how it was or even give us more to think about, balance, and work for. Why remove?

[BasilBestBoy]

no i agree i thougt viper was just fine as was, id def would love more buffs/poisons to work with

[Lyth]

If you don't want to play a job with many positionals, then play RPR. Alternatively, consider playing a tank. Don't go to the job with the highest positional count and try to get them removed.

[LisseyCrowe]

If you don't want to play a job with many positionals, then play RPR. Alternatively, consider playing a tank. Don't go to the job with the highest positional count and try to get them removed.

This ain't about positionals. It's about if Viper absolutely had to be changed, then positionals would've been preferred over it. At least read the post before you fight back against it.

[Shurrikhan]

This feels like another "Would your rather lose A or B?" thread where the only reasonable answer worth putting out where a dev might have even an infinitesimal chance to see it is "neither".

[Lyth]

...

I did. There was a post like this already a few weeks ago players already argued against. OP is arguing for positionals to be removed as a substitute for NG removal. The end result of feedback like this is they'll just remove positionals as well.

It's really terrible watching the community deliberately chip away and destroy what was one of the best designed jobs on release.

[LisseyCrowe]

I did. There was a post like this already a few weeks ago players already argued against. OP is arguing for positionals to be removed as a substitute for NG removal. The end result of feedback like this is they'll just remove positionals as well.

It's really terrible watching the community deliberately chip away and destroy what was one of the best designed jobs on release.

Then say something along the lines of "Don't touch it anymore" instead of answering like OP's on a crusade against positionals.

Besides, it is to everyone's interest to keep the discussion alive so the Devs know people care, doubly so while the iron's hot. I sure don't want to be left with Viper in its current state.

EDIT : I'm saying this because if we assume Gnash was removed because no one realized that was an option so no one argued for "keeping it", then we need to be more vigilant about the message we're sending.

[Lyth]

No, this is extremely important to me.

I was against changes to VPR from the moment that they announced them, two days after the game's official launch (six days after early access). Supposedly this was on the basis of player feedback to improve 'accessibility' on the most played job in the game at launch. A lot of those people providing feedback would have had only a passing fancy in the job and no real interest in investing time in ever getting better at it. Yet their opinions have impact.

I think it's extremely important for people who are passionate about the job to also be vocal and actively reject any proposed simplifications to it. If this was just a thread about bringing NG back, that would be fine. It's not. This is a thread asking for a further simplification to it by removing positionals. The dev team needs to know clearly upfront that players will not tolerate that. No mixed messages. If you bring up positionals, then I will take issue with it.

[Shurrikhan]

Then say something along the lines of "Don't touch it anymore" instead of answering like OP's on a crusade against positionals.

Frankly, given the impact that even a passing or conditional suggestion of reduced available optimization can have, it is generally proportionate to treat any comment suggesting that X is dispensable as some fragment of "a crusade" against it, since it will tend to have that exact impact, intentionally or not.

For instance, I might suggest that, since you cannot follow up Vicewinder with anything other than a Coil action without wasting those Coils, that Hunter's Coil replace Steel Fangs > Hunter's Sting > Flanksting Strike / Hindsting Strike and Swiftskin's Coil replace Reaving Fangs > Swiftskin's Sting > Flanksbane Strike / Hindsbane Fang until both are consumed.

I could make that suggestion because I don't see anything wrong with that and do see some potential benefits from that... but I do expect that those who can see the potential loss would speak up based on how at risk the thing I'm suggesting be deleted already is. That's not elitism or people being narrow-viewed so much as, yes, a contextually appropriate response.

If a seemingly low-stake suggestion appears to blow up in our face, it's because we didn't research the implications first and happened upon a landmine. As long as discussion doesn't devolve into ad hominem, though, that's okay; that's just letting others do the work of contextualizing our suggestions. They may get tired of having to do so, but we're in no position to get tired of those who have a much more real stake in the matter duly providing their opinions.

We've seen time and time again that, if anything, those who know less about a given job tend to have more impact on its design than those who actually play it. That those who are regularly disregarded despite being the few actually informed (and, more than likely, have steadily seen what they enjoy chipped away to make room for the vague potential that someone else might then dabble in their job) might seem a bit more intense, then... should be expected.